If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

His trillion dollar stimulus plans didn't do crap for the economy. Giving him more money will accomplish more of the same. Stimulating the economy by decreasing taxes is the answer. But Dimocrats don't get it. That's why they need to be voted out. Punishing the job creators and the spenders will only lead to a tightening by them. Less people will be hired, and less money spent.

I am an example...I'm not rich, but I'm employed and have decent cash flow....but I too am putting myself on a budget, something I never did...not because I am going to lose my job, but because I am a consumer with no confidence in the economy right now.

I wouldn't have a problem if they would do REAL tax reform - lower the tax rates in exchange for doing away with all deductions. I would give up my mortgage interest deduction; I wonder if the "quiverfull" conservatives with tons of kids would give up the deduction for each child? ;)

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade/8 years now. Obama renewed the tax cuts. It simply isn't working.

It's letting the people with money simply keep it and hoard it, mega-corporations aren't making well-paying jobs, they are just sitting on the cash. It's not working.

Originally Posted by Hawkgirl

His trillion dollar stimulus plans didn't do crap for the economy. Giving him more money will accomplish more of the same. Stimulating the economy by decreasing taxes is the answer. But Dimocrats don't get it.

It's not working. Obama and the Democrats extended the Bush tax cuts, and the stimulus plans were loaded with even more tax cuts. Do you want to count the tax cuts in the stimulus as "spending"? That's how you get that "trillion dollar" figure, which is already a stretch - by assuming the loads of tax cuts counts as "spending".

In fact, the stimulus package is the biggest tax cut in history. The packages included $282 Billion over two years, which is larger than Bush's tax cuts in it's first two years.

Over course over the last 10 years, the Bush tax cuts cost over a Trillion dollars, if you count tax cuts as an expenditure.

That's why they need to be voted out. Punishing the job creators and the spenders will only lead to a tightening by them. Less people will be hired, and less money spent.

I am an example...I'm not rich, but I'm employed and have decent cash flow....but I too am putting myself on a budget, something I never did...not because I am going to lose my job, but because I am a consumer with no confidence in the economy right now.

This idea that wealthy people are suffering under a regime of oppression, that they are having their wallets confiscated and are doing worse than ever before, and as a result they must tighten their belts and not hire anyone, is absurd. There is an entire nutso mythology/narrative that supports the working class's desire to lower taxes for the wealthy, but it's insane.

Right now, the upper class of wealthy elites is doing better than ever before. The wealth gap between the wealthy and regular working people has risen to historic highs:

These enormous wealth inequalities cannot be ignored when you hear claims that the wealthy are getting shafted with a shit deal from the government. Policies have never been better for them!

Compare this to regular working people, who haven't seen any significant increase in real wages in most of our lifetimes:

Although wages for regular people have been stagnant for the last several decades, that isn't true for the people at the top:

The simple truth is that our policies benefit the wealthy at the expense of working class and poor people. Corporate media repeats the message over and over that the rich are facing some sort of financial assault from big government liberals who want to take all their money, but it's not true. They are crying wolf so that people will vote for even more radical policies and they can simply sprint away with the ball, racking up even more historic amounts of cash.

Corporate mainstream media always uses the line that government taxation is simply redistribution of wealth, and that America is facing enormous wealth distribution plans from the government that will destroy jobs.

Actually that's not the case:

The wealthy people in this country are not having to "tighten their belts" like regular people are, they are doing better than ever, they have all the chips and all the odds are stacked in their favor. Don't buy into the mainstream nonsense, just look at the data.

We are giving them more and more tax cuts, and for what?

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

A question on spending: When government spends money, where does that money go? When you spend money, it doesn't just vanish into thin air, where does it go? Doesn't it have to go into the economy, it pays people and those people then buy goods and services with their paychecks?

The millions of government employees get paid, poor people and sick people and unemployment people get assistance money, the people involved in running government programs get paid, and so on and so on.

Are these people not consumers? Do they not spend those dollars here in America?

If the government stopped spending 80% of what it spends, wouldn't that mean that a HUGE sum of money would suddenly be taken out of the economy? People who go to small businesses and buy clothes and food and toys and all that suddenly would not be able to.

Wouldn't that also derail the economy? If billions of consumer cash dries up, so does demand for goods and services.

I think looking at this entirely one way or the other is flawed, we have to take spending cuts into serious consideration, but understand that a lot of that money is going to pay for jobs that regular working class people hold. A lot of that money is being pumped into the economy from the bottom up, and people with less money spend a greater percentage of their income on goods or services (because they have to).

There are negative side effects to cutting too much spending, it can mess up our economy by raising unemployment rates and taking out billions of dollars from the economy, dollars which would otherwise stimulate demand for businesses.

Some spending cuts are necessary, but there are side effects to consider. The same applies to taxes. If we raise taxes too high (such as 100% as some people keep implying), then the economy could not function either. However, raising them a little bit might actually work. We just have to keep in mind that that sprinting full speed in either direction can cause problems for our economy. We need a sane balance of spending cuts and tax increases, with knowledge based on DATA about where we are today.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

A question on spending: When government spends money, where does that money go? When you spend money, it doesn't just vanish into thin air, where does it go? Doesn't it have to go into the economy, it pays people and those people then buy goods and services with their paychecks?

Economic fallacy.

The government creates Nothing, produces Nothing. Just because the end result of your scenario is money pumped into the economy doesn't mean that makes for a vibrant economic system. It doesn't mean that government employees are a vital part of the consumer economy simply because they "consume".

Read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Best thing about it is it is it's short and easy to understand for even Marxists.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

There are negative side effects to cutting too much spending, it can mess up our economy by raising unemployment rates and taking out billions of dollars from the economy, dollars which would otherwise stimulate demand for businesses.

Too simplistic. Yes...there will be negative side effects NOW....decades later after the rot has set in by Keynsian's, Internationalists, and social welfare dogmatics.

Could you be perpetuating a Strawman? There are much better ways to attack spending immediately and in the long run and not do the damage your suggesting with the scare tactics of "raising unemployment".

Are you at all aware just how truly bad unemployment is right now? And how much worse it may get under the current policy, if we continue to follow it?

Cutting spending is the first step in recovery. Only the minds that have created this problem are suggesting otherwise.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

The government creates Nothing, produces Nothing. Just because the end result of your scenario is money pumped into the economy doesn't mean that makes for a vibrant economic system. It doesn't mean that government employees are a vital part of the consumer economy simply because they "consume".

The government provides services. Our economy today is more service based than it is production based. We don't have the manufacturing society that we did many decades ago.

Consumers are a vital part of the consumer economy. All businesses rely on demand, and when consumers are in weaker economic positions (as hawkgirl described herself in), they have less demand for consumer goods and services.

Read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Best thing about it is it is it's short and easy to understand for even Marxists.

Sure thing, I found it available online.

Too simplistic. Yes...there will be negative side effects NOW....decades later after the rot has set in by Keynsian's, Internationalists, and social welfare dogmatics.

Trillions of dollars to wage wars, billions to bail out banks, and the like are not Keynsian policies. Keynsian policies are supposed to increase demand, these forms of extreme spending don't do that. It's a fallacy to lump all "spending" under the umbrella of Keynsianism.

The nation used Supply Side trickle down policies all throughout the 80's and also during the last decade, you can't claim that we are facing effects of Kensianism.

Could you be perpetuating a Strawman? There are much better ways to attack spending immediately and in the long run and not do the damage your suggesting with the scare tactics of "raising unemployment".

Firing government employees raises unemployment.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.